It’s truly autumn now in Victoria, but I’m still remembering summer. For me, this summer was the Summer of Water. I spent the hot days swimming in Kootenay Lake and Duncan Lake/Reservoir, enjoying some of the world’s best drinking water from snowpack-fed mountain streams, and, as part of two research internships, reading about water issues in Canada and across the world. My focus eventually turned to the Columbia River Treaty and the issues surrounding its possible upcoming renegotiation. The Treaty is fascinating, and we’ll all be hearing more about it in the next year, so I want to offer a little introduction.
The Columbia River Treaty, signed and ratified by Canada and the United States, went into effect in 1964. The treaty was primarily established in order to ensure that the US would have water (only) when it was wanted, for the purposes of hydro-power production and flood control. In return, Canada and British Columbia would receive payments - their share of the benefits the US would see from its electricity generation and subsequent sale.
As part of the treaty, four dams were built: three in Canada - Mica, Duncan and Hugh Keenleyside (Arrow Lakes), and the Libby Dam in the US, which created the border-crossing Lake Koocanusa. Duncan Dam is the only one of the four treaty dams that is used exclusively for storage, not for power generation.
On September 16th, 2024, the treaty will be open for renegotiation or cancellation for the first time, as long as 10 years notice is given. So, since notice can be given as soon as September 16th, 2014, the renegotiation process has essentially begun. Now is the time for citizens of Canada and the US to be thinking (and speaking up) about our vision for the Columbia River Basin.
There is much to be considered about the treaty and the basin. Already, meetings are being held among community groups and public officials. Several indigenous groups from the US and Canada have begin meeting to discuss what their roles, options and concerns in relation to the treaty. When the treaty was written, tribes were not at the table, nor were environmentalists and a number of other stakeholders.
Times have changed, and it will be interesting to see how public attitudes toward the treaty are shaped and revealed in the next couple of years. What do we want for the Columbia River Basin? A better home for fish? More power generation? Money? Functioning ecosystems? With global warming, how much water can we expect to have in the basin in the next 60 years?
The Columbia River Treaty, signed and ratified by Canada and the United States, went into effect in 1964. The treaty was primarily established in order to ensure that the US would have water (only) when it was wanted, for the purposes of hydro-power production and flood control. In return, Canada and British Columbia would receive payments - their share of the benefits the US would see from its electricity generation and subsequent sale.
As part of the treaty, four dams were built: three in Canada - Mica, Duncan and Hugh Keenleyside (Arrow Lakes), and the Libby Dam in the US, which created the border-crossing Lake Koocanusa. Duncan Dam is the only one of the four treaty dams that is used exclusively for storage, not for power generation.
On September 16th, 2024, the treaty will be open for renegotiation or cancellation for the first time, as long as 10 years notice is given. So, since notice can be given as soon as September 16th, 2014, the renegotiation process has essentially begun. Now is the time for citizens of Canada and the US to be thinking (and speaking up) about our vision for the Columbia River Basin.
There is much to be considered about the treaty and the basin. Already, meetings are being held among community groups and public officials. Several indigenous groups from the US and Canada have begin meeting to discuss what their roles, options and concerns in relation to the treaty. When the treaty was written, tribes were not at the table, nor were environmentalists and a number of other stakeholders.
Times have changed, and it will be interesting to see how public attitudes toward the treaty are shaped and revealed in the next couple of years. What do we want for the Columbia River Basin? A better home for fish? More power generation? Money? Functioning ecosystems? With global warming, how much water can we expect to have in the basin in the next 60 years?
I'm looking forward to learning more about the Basin and being a part of the conversation. Join me!
